Author Topic: Ireland votes YES for equal marriage !! (Read 36779 times)

Lizard · « **Reply #25 on:** May 27, 2015, 11:46 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2015, 11:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2015, 15:18
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage? I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion? I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses.

wordplanet · « **Reply #26 on:** May 27, 2015, 15:20 »

Glad to hear it!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** May 27, 2015, 15:57 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2015, 11:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2015, 15:18
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage? I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion? I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

I'll bow to your broader knowledge, then (but agree with the Lizard, too).

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #28 on:** May 28, 2015, 01:27 »

Quote from: Lizard on May 27, 2015, 11:46

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2015, 11:04
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2015, 15:18
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage? I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion? I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses.

Well, I think Sharpshot is right about marriage predating mainstream religions. And that does not need great studies. If you look at the oldest of mainstream religions (Hinduism?, Judaism?) it's pretty young when compared with the history of mankind.

fotorob · « **Reply #29 on:** May 28, 2015, 02:40 »

On a related note:
Not everybody seems to be happy about it.
So the Italian political party NCD used one of my stock images (most likely not within the license agreement terms):
http://bit.ly/1J3O6gR

lex-icon · « **Reply #30 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:25 »

Quote from: Lizard on May 26, 2015, 08:49

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 26, 2015, 08:06
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread. ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first ,

thank you for "spoiling" that childish party, after so much "empathy" on the part of all these "politically-correct" out there, it is good to see that at least some grown-ups are still around as well -- do we all have to part with the rests of reason and promote LGBT and turn right and wrong on their heads these days worldwide, just to please the crowds?!

And what the f*** (or, more appropriately here, f***-in-the.a**) does it have to do with Microstock? Is it just me? Am I missing something here? :) Seriously, folks.

Decriminalising should have been enough -- and it would even have been a good thing, had it not been for the misconception caused by it that now that it is not "a crime" anymore everyone needed to support it...

I have shared a flat with two gays for many years (because I am, or used to be, a naive and open person when I was young and stupid). These clowns are the most intolerant bunch of people you can find on the planet, not interested in anything but their little "special interest" there. -- Just like communists and the usual do-gooder politicians are, in fact, the most greedy on the planet.

Often, things are a bit different from what they seem to be at first sight...

stuttershock · « **Reply #31 on:** May 28, 2015, 11:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2015, 14:40

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 26, 2015, 14:30
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

From the C of E marriage service:
"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love."

OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

it must, then, be about progressivism never stopping and about shaking all foundations of everything for trouble-making's sake -- and exactly so it seems in our day and age with all the "Love" Parades and rubbish wherever you go.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #32 on:** May 28, 2015, 15:24 »

Lexicon, the thread is posted in Off Topic. Can you grasp the concept of an off topic post? I doubt it after reading your ignorant and superficial comment.

Lizard · « **Reply #33 on:** May 28, 2015, 15:54 »

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on May 28, 2015, 01:27

Quote from: Lizard on May 27, 2015, 11:46
Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2015, 11:04
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2015, 15:18
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage? I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion? I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.

You certainly cannot find relevant and accurate info on that whatever you decide to read but if one things is sure than is that both terms represent strong tools in hands on ones controlling the masses.

Well, I think Sharpshot is right about marriage predating mainstream religions. And that does not need great studies. If you look at the oldest of mainstream religions (Hinduism?, Judaism?) it's pretty young when compared with the history of mankind.

Its absolutely your right to think whatever you want but the fact is that to answer the question actually needs much more than great studies because great studies have never explained nothing with clear facts and pretty clear evidences that are saying different were always just swiped under the rug like a missing link in Darwinism.

Hinduism is actually not at all among oldest know religions, is just largest of the oldest ones that "officially survived" but lets say taht even if it was oldest that what we will do about cults in the matter because we cant even find the core of religions so how can we possibly dig deeper into cults which are way older and more difficult to trace because they could include way less people and they could easily be the ones that implemented wedding as such.

And claiming that marriage is older than religions is actually pure speculation wit not a single evidence to support it that cannot be questioned.

If so...who was the one that could approve or disapprove wedding and who was originally leading the ceremony if wedding was older then religion and cult ?

It had logically be a man of "more value" and adding more value to a man over other man is again form of leadership which with main difference with the animals who pick the strongest leader man tend to pick the wised one and what the most clever trick ever invented ? Claiming that other higher being wants his leadership and that already defines religious opinion.

But the most importantly is the fact that nobody cannot answer that question especially with more and more proves that even mainstream science cannot deny about mankind being way more old that we think.

Lizard · « **Reply #34 on:** May 28, 2015, 16:01 »

Quote from: lex-icon on May 28, 2015, 10:25

Quote from: Lizard on May 26, 2015, 08:49
Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 26, 2015, 08:06
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.

Ok someone has to spoil the party first ,

thank you for "spoiling" that childish party, after so much "empathy" on the part of all these "politically-correct" out there, it is good to see that at least some grown-ups are still around as well -- do we all have to part with the rests of reason and promote LGBT and turn right and wrong on their heads these days worldwide, just to please the crowds?!

And what the f*** (or, more appropriately here, f***-in-the.a**) does it have to do with Microstock? Is it just me? Am I missing something here? Seriously, folks.

Decriminalising should have been enough -- and it would even have been a good thing, had it not been for the misconception caused by it that now that it is not "a crime" anymore everyone needed to support it...

I have shared a flat with two gays for many years (because I am, or used to be, a naive and open person when I was young and stupid). These clowns are the most intolerant bunch of people you can find on the planet, not interested in anything but their little "special interest" there. -- Just like communists and the usual do-gooder politicians are, in fact, the most greedy on the planet.

Often, things are a bit different from what they seem to be at first sight...

Cool, but no need to thank me on this.

Sorry as I said im not the one who would support the other side radical thought especially with facts that you judge a whole population based on 2 individuals you actually met.

As I said I tend to stand in the middle and be objective on this

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #35 on:** May 28, 2015, 16:32 »

@ Lizard

The question was put specifically about "mainstream" religions, and I commented only about them. And it's not necessary any studies to know that marriage predates those mainstream religions since they have at most 5000 years of history and the modern man has tenths of thousands.

If we talk about smaller religions, like the ones from native people around the world, who knows what came first? And it's not even very relevant.

Marriage came up from the need of people (2, 5, 10...) to commit to each other, and religion and ceremonies were just the way society arranged to celebrate it and make it official.

Thinking about it, I do not think marriage came from religion. It came from that need from people to bond and making it official to the the rest of the society. Religion was just used as a seal of approval like in so many other things. For example, agricultures start sowing and the priest is called for blessings, mating season is near and people bless the animals, a ship is launched to the sea and the priest blesses it and so on. None of those activities originated from religion but religion is present in it.

So religion gets involved in everything and some times appropriates some of them. Marriage is one of them.

Lizard · « **Reply #36 on:** May 28, 2015, 17:55 »

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on May 28, 2015, 16:32

@ Lizard

The question was put specifically about "mainstream" religions, and I commented only about them. And it's not necessary any studies to know that marriage predates those mainstream religions since they have at most 5000 years of history and the modern man has tenths of thousands.

If we talk about smaller religions, like the ones from native people around the world, who knows what came first? And it's not even very relevant.

Marriage came up from the need of people (2, 5, 10...) to commit to each other, and religion and ceremonies were just the way society arranged to celebrate it and make it official.

Thinking about it, I do not think marriage came from religion. It came from that need from people to bond and making it official to the the rest of the society. Religion was just used as a seal of approval like in so many other things. For example, agricultures start sowing and the priest is called for blessings, mating season is near and people bless the animals, a ship is launched to the sea and the priest blesses it and so on. None of those activities originated from religion but religion is present in it.

So religion gets involved in everything and some times appropriates some of them. Marriage is one of them.

Actually a lot of studies about that say differently. When 2 people were in love or boned to spend the life together they didn't have any reason to announce it or talk to anyone about that , first people lived in very small groups and were nomadic so they really haven't had any need about that.

The first benefits of marriage were actually about the power and creating bonds with other strong group of people to make the clan even stronger or uniting clans and the acts of strong and ceremonial announcements were used to spread the word as far as it goes that the members of 2 groups are now joined in blood and united.

The higher the people were in hierarchy more importance was given to the bond while while "small people" were just living together without any need of announcements.

As we know that the man is very social being we can assume that grouping people started in very early stage but on the other hand there were always many puzzles in peoples heads and the toughest ones were always explained by higher will or believing of something bigger which automatically mean a form of religion especially when a similar believe was shared within a group

In my opinion man was more likely to start to think and believe in higher force than to think to officially form a bond with someone and give that bond a name but yet again Im speculating just like anyone else who ever tried to answer that question

dpimborough · « **Reply #37 on:** May 29, 2015, 04:30 »

Sorry but you humans always forget one over arching principle.

Selfish genes.

Marriage is nothing to do with social demands or religion.

Bonding or pair mating has everything to do with the under development of human babies when born.

It takes so long for a human to reach maturity and independence that the only way for the species to survive would be to have stable social structures to ensure the survival of the infants.

Human females in most primitive societies care for and nurture children and prepare food whilst human males provide animal protein through hunting and defensive capabilities to protect the group.

Even today human females instinctively look for mates who are not only able to provide but produce strong healthy offspring.

Marriage is merely a social construct some say but it is based on a deeper drive that pre-existed religion and more recent society (recent as in the last 10,000 years).

Bonding in other animals tends to be looser (especially cats) as infants take less time to reach maturity ~ for example a cat takes from 5 to 12 months to reach sexual maturity and the female can provide all the kittens requirements independently of male cats so no bonding is required (thankfully

)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Ireland votes YES for equal marriage !! (Read 36779 times)

Lizard

wordplanet

BaldricksTrousers

StockPhotosArt.com

fotorob

lex-icon

stuttershock

Semmick Photo

Lizard

Lizard

StockPhotosArt.com

Lizard

dpimborough

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors